IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1010523.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Magnitude-sensitive reaction times reveal non-linear time costs in multi-alternative decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • James A R Marshall
  • Andreagiovanni Reina
  • Célia Hay
  • Audrey Dussutour
  • Angelo Pirrone

Abstract

Optimality analysis of value-based decisions in binary and multi-alternative choice settings predicts that reaction times should be sensitive only to differences in stimulus magnitudes, but not to overall absolute stimulus magnitude. Yet experimental work in the binary case has shown magnitude sensitive reaction times, and theory shows that this can be explained by switching from linear to multiplicative time costs, but also by nonlinear subjective utility. Thus disentangling explanations for observed magnitude sensitive reaction times is difficult. Here for the first time we extend the theoretical analysis of geometric time-discounting to ternary choices, and present novel experimental evidence for magnitude-sensitivity in such decisions, in both humans and slime moulds. We consider the optimal policies for all possible combinations of linear and geometric time costs, and linear and nonlinear utility; interestingly, geometric discounting emerges as the predominant explanation for magnitude sensitivity.Author summary: Analysis of decisions based on option value (e.g. which pile of coins would you like?) suggests that the optimal rules correspond to simple mechanisms also known to be optimal for perceptual decisions (e.g. which light is brighter?) But, crucially, these analyses assume that the cost of time is linear—when the more usual assumption is made that time discounts multiplicatively (e.g. ‘a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (and so two in the hand are worth four in the bush)’) then optimal decision-making looks quite different—in particular, the theory predicts that decision-making should be sensitive to the absolute magnitude of the opportunities, such as coin pile sizes, under consideration, in a way that the optimal perceptual mechanisms are not. As well as the theory, we present novel experimental evidence from human decision-making experiments, and foraging slime mould, of precisely such magnitude-sensitivity. This is a rare example of theory in behaviour making a falsifiable prediction that is confirmed in two, highly divergent, species, one with a brain and one without.

Suggested Citation

  • James A R Marshall & Andreagiovanni Reina & Célia Hay & Audrey Dussutour & Angelo Pirrone, 2022. "Magnitude-sensitive reaction times reveal non-linear time costs in multi-alternative decision-making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1010523
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010523
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010523&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010523?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Satohiro Tajima & Jan Drugowitsch & Alexandre Pouget, 2016. "Optimal policy for value-based decision-making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moshe Glickman & Orian Sharoni & Dino J Levy & Ernst Niebur & Veit Stuphorn & Marius Usher, 2019. "The formation of preference in risky choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Th'eo Durandard & Matteo Camboni, 2024. "Comparative Statics for Optimal Stopping Problems in Nonstationary Environments," Papers 2402.06999, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    3. Hébert, Benjamin & Woodford, Michael, 2023. "Rational inattention when decisions take time," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. Frederick Callaway & Antonio Rangel & Thomas L Griffiths, 2021. "Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-29, March.
    5. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Fehr, Ernst & Netzer, Nick, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    6. Rastislav Rehak, 2022. "Sequential Sampling Beyond Decisions? A Normative Model of Decision Confidence," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp739, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    7. Lieder, Falk & Griffiths, Tom & Hsu, Ming, 2016. "Over-representation of extreme events in decision-making reflects rational use of cognitive resources," OSF Preprints kxxag, Center for Open Science.
    8. Douglas Lee & Jean Daunizeau, 2020. "Choosing what we like vs liking what we choose: How choice-induced preference change might actually be instrumental to decision-making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Benjamin Hébert & Michael Woodford, 2018. "Information Costs and Sequential Information Sampling," NBER Working Papers 25316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Sophie-Anne Baker & Thom Griffith & Nathan F. Lepora, 2022. "Degenerate boundaries for multiple-alternative decisions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Benjamin Hébert & Michael Woodford, 2017. "Rational Inattention and Sequential Information Sampling," NBER Working Papers 23787, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. repec:osf:osfxxx:kxxag_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Romy Frömer & Matthew R. Nassar & Benedikt V. Ehinger & Amitai Shenhav, 2024. "Common neural choice signals can emerge artefactually amid multiple distinct value signals," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(11), pages 2194-2208, November.
    14. Jonathan Schaffner & Sherry Dongqi Bao & Philippe N. Tobler & Todd A. Hare & Rafael Polania, 2023. "Sensory perception relies on fitness-maximizing codes," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1135-1151, July.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:381-394 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Arkady Konovalov & Ian Krajbich, 2019. "Revealed strength of preference: Inference from response times," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 381-394, July.
    17. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1010523. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.